One of the greatest problems that I have with trials in England is the pronounced role of judges in questioning witnesses and summarizing evidence. I have been before some highly biased judges who do everything they can to push a jury toward the prosecution. Many judges are former prosecutors or elected on “tough-on-crime” platforms. Currently, while such judges can rule against you on motions and instructions, the impact is mitigated by the fact that they cannot summarize the evidence. Judges have considerable influence over jurors who may be entirely unaware of bias.

People are now taking a second look at the Economic Modeling Specialists, Inc. (EMSI) study reported in the NYT Economix blog that says there's an oversupply of lawyers everywhere but Washington, D.C., Wisconsin, Nebraska and Wyoming. And guess what? There might be an oversupply there, too. The methodology (people passing the state's bar compared to estimated job openings) doesn't quite fit those jurisdictions. EMSI's updated explanation:

Lawyers in good standing and licensed in other states can practice in D.C. — or be “waived into” membership — which explains why there are very few who actually take the bar exam there. In Wisconsin (and perhaps Wyoming and Nebraska, as one commenter noted) graduates from law schools in the state do not have to pass the bar before practicing. This is one reason why looking at the completers data from NCES is helpful; not all law schools grads at Wisconsin will practice in the state, but there’s a good chance the completer number for Wisconsin (691) is a more accurate measure of the supply than the bar exam passer number (248). The same is true for D.C.

A story in the ABA Journal says "Law Job Stagnation May Have Started Before the Recession—And It May Be a Sign of Lasting Change." Hope the golden age of lawyering will return? Think about a paradigm shift instead, the story says. In the fact of "an urgent need for better and cheaper legal services" in a rapidly globalizing world, lawyers need to "re-examine some long-standing assumptions about lawyers and the clients they serve." And the author's prescription for survival is one that is increasingly familiar in all fields -- innovate:

The biggest challenge for law firms will be transitioning away from internal firm metrics that reward billable hours and discourage or prohibit the crucial trial-and-error experimentation needed to create, refine and market more innovative work processes that do more with less.

Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy's most prolific blogger on the constitutionality of the federal health care legislation (and a confirmed opponent), says that today’s 6th Circuit decision upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate is "undeniably a setback for mandate opponents" because, up until now, judges’ votes in the mandate cases have split along ideological and partisan lines. Judge Boyce Martin, a Carter appointee, wrote the majority opinion, but it is the concurrence of G.W. Bush appointee Jeffrey Sutton that is drawing the most attention. Somin is highly critical, but his fellow blogger, Orin Kerr, praises the concurrence, and explains why it is noteworthy:

Judge Sutton is a Federalist Society favorite, one of Justice Scalia’s favorite former clerks, and a regular “feeder” judge to the Supreme Court. As a result, what Judge Sutton thinks about the constitutionality of the mandate actually matters a lot to the future debate over the mandate. In light of that, I think the important aspect of today’s opinion from the Sixth Circuit is that Judge Sutton concluded that the mandate is constitutional.

U.S. District Judge James L. Graham (Southern District of Ohio), sitting by designation, dissented.

There are a several ways to open a document you recently worked on. You can look through your directories to find it, create an icon and save it on your desktop, or view your most recently used file list, which is the easiest way.

In the Windows 7 environment:

Open Word (either a new document or an existing one).

The Word icon will now appear in the tray on the bottom of your screen.

Right click on the Word icon and a list of the most recently opened Word documents will appear.

Click on the document you want, and it will automatically open.

In the Windows XP environment:

Open Word (either a new document or an existing one).

Click on the “Office Button” in the upper left corner and a list of the most recently opened Word documents will appear.

From the statement of the Court on the release of the new rules (PDF) that will take effect September 1:

Jurors can, with the judge’s permission, submit questions to witnesses through the judge. Criminal procedure rules already contained such a provision, but the new rule includes jurors in civil cases as well.

Jurors can, if permitted by the judge, take notes during trial and use those notes during the jury’s deliberations.

The jury can request to view “property or ... a place where a material event [such as a crime scene] occurred.” In civil cases, the judge “may instruct the jurors that they are permitted to discuss the evidence among themselves in the jury room during trial recesses,” as long as all jurors are present.

After the jury is sworn, the judge “shall provide the jury with pretrial instructions reasonably likely to assist in its consideration of the case,” covering “the duties of the jury, trial, procedure, and the law applicable to the case ....” The rule also requires the court to give jurors copies of the instructions.

The judge may “authorize or require” attorneys to provide jurors with “a reference document or notebook,” which would include a list of witnesses, relevant provisions in statutes, and copies of any documents at issue, such as a contract. Other items, such as preliminary jury instructions, trial exhibits, “and other admissible information,” can also be added to the notebook.

The judge may require attorneys to prepare “concise, written summaries of depositions” for the jury instead of having the full deposition read aloud. In addition to making opening and closing statements, attorneys may, “in the court’s discretion, present interim commentary at appropriate junctures of the trial.”

Court can schedule expert testimony to assist jurors’ understanding of the issues – for example, by having expert witnesses testify sequentially. Another option is to allow each expert to be present for the opposing expert’s testimony, so that the expert can “aid counsel in formulating questions to be asked of the testifying expert on cross-examination.”

Judges may “fairly and impartially sum up the evidence” after closing arguments, while also reminding jurors that they must decide fact issues for themselves.

The rule bars judges from commenting on a witness’s credibility or stating a conclusion “on the ultimate issue of fact before the jury.”

Judges are required to give the jury a copy of the final jury instructions to take into the jury room for final deliberations. In addition, judges must invite jurors to ask any questions they may have to clarify the instructions. In addition to jurors’ notes and final jury instructions, the judge “may permit the jurors to take into the jury room the reference document ... as well as any exhibits and writings admitted into evidence.”

The judge “may not refuse a reasonable request” from jurors to review evidence or testimony as they deliberate.

If the jury appears to reach an impasse during deliberations, the judge “may invite the jurors to list the issues that divide or confuse them in the event that the judge can be of assistance in clarifying or amplifying the final instructions.”

The Michigan Supreme Court today adopted major rewrite of the court rules concerning jury practices, to take effect September 1. The changes adopt many reforms that have been in effect on a provisional basis in pilot projects throughout the state for the past two years. The new rules consolidate jury practices for both civil and criminal proceedings in a new MCR 2.513. Download the order here. The Court will review the changes in 2014. Several changes adopted today were opposed by the State Bar.

Justice Hathaway dissented from the Court's order, saying that the changes "contain multiple procedures that are highly controversial and are likely to prove problematic, particularly when litigants are forced to use them by a trial judge." Specifically:

The new rules include controversial procedures such as using deposition summaries in lieu of testimony, interim jury deliberations, and interim commentary by attorneys. I agree with the overwhelming majority of public comments that oppose most of these procedures. Those comments were submitted by a broad spectrum of the legal community, and reflect a host of valid, practical and legal issues that have not been resolved. While I will not summarize those lengthy and detailed concerns here, I urge trial judges and litigants to review the comments submitted to this Court before utilizing these procedures.

Justice Markman, in response, said that the rules will accomplish the following:

"make evidence more accessible to jurors, and thereby enhance the ability of jurors to render intelligent and informed decisions concerning the significance of such evidence; second, they will afford jurors a better opportunity to discern the ‘big picture’ of cases in which they are sitting, and thereby enable them to better understand and more effectively carry out their responsibilities; third, they will enhance the quality and accuracy of juror deliberations; fourth, they will diminish opportunities for gamesmanship in the courtroom, potentially distracting and confusing jurors; fifth, they will more deeply engage, and maintain the attention of, jurors in the proceedings that they are to judge; and sixth, they will render at least somewhat less true Robert Frost’s observation that 'a jury consists of twelve persons chosen to decide who has the better lawyer.' "

"Powerful, yet compact and unobtrusive" describes some of Michigan's best notch appellate litigators, in our opinion. But in this case, the reference is to iPads, which At the Lectern says are becoming more and more common both on the appellate bench and at the lectern itself.